Wednesday, March 16, 2011

It is foolish to expect logical consistency from government, much less the media. But note the intrinsic contradiction between what influential members of the British public still believe their government to be and what their government actually proclaims that it is:

Item One: The state-sponsored Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened [in the case of the Johns family being denied foster parent status on the grounds of their Christianity] and argued that it was the duty of the state to protect vulnerable children from becoming “infected” with Judeo-Christian values of sexual morality. The rest is history, and in a startling judgment, the High Court held last Monday that the United Kingdom is a secular state and that Christianity as part of the law is “mere rhetoric.”

Item Two: Prof Simms comes down on the side of the latter [the pro-Libyan intervention position], citing Palmerston: "Our duty – our vocation – is not to enslave, but to set free… we stand at the head of moral, social, and political civilisation… when we see people battling against difficulties and struggling against obstacles in the pursuit of their rights, we may be permitted… if occasion require, to lend them a helping hand."

Lord Palmerston was twice the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the second time from June 1859 to October 1865. At that time, the United Kingdom was an unequivocally Christian monarchy and Christianity was an integral aspect of its moral, social, and political civilization. Now, according to the High Court, the United Kingdom is Christian in rhetorical name only despite the fact that neither the laws nor the unwritten English constitution have changed. So, the only conclusion is that the United Kingdom no longer stands at the head of moral, social, and political civilization, but has been reduced to following the lead of the totalitarian pagan rulers of Continental Europe.

Britain can't intervene in Libya because it has neither the ability nor the moral justification for doing so. On what basis would they intervene anyhohw, the inability of Libyans to democratically select their government? That would be ludicrous, considering that the British people have been repeatedly denied the referendum on the sacrifice of their national sovereignty to the European Union that they have been repeatedly promised. Political freedom is a predominantly Christian phenomenon and there is no evidence that it can survive paganism, which naturally gravitates towards totalitarian rule.

It is important for Americans to understand these developments, so they can learn from the British experience. The first lesson is the speed and success of the secular ideology in replacing Judeo-Christian freedoms. In 1997, the United Kingdom was a more stable country than the United States; an evolving state with a millennium of religious liberty. If someone had told me then that within little more than a decade, stable Christian households would be deemed unsuitable to foster children, or that Crosses would be banned, or that hate-speech laws would be used to crush the very ideas of dissent, I would not have believed it. I would have been labeled an alarmist if I had expressed views to that avail.

The second factor to recognize is that the terms liberal, diversity, and tolerance are descriptors for a political program which logic and law alone cannot explain. Thirdly, the secular movement is but a variant of the utopian ambitions that have inspired man from the beginning of time. However, the endgame of such programs is always the same

Paul Diamond is exactly correct. The endgame of secular utopianism is always the same. It ends in the gulag, the guillotine, and the gas chamber. But the key point to remember is that however it ends, it always ends, because the Gates of Hell cannot and will not prevail.